Professor John Robertson OBA
Thanks to gavinochiltree for alerting us to this.
Earlier posts here have drawn attention to Scottish Labour’s complicity with the idea of reintroducing nuclear power stations into Scotland and their implicit acceptance of consequent cancer risks from their emissions directly and indirectly from the poorly stored waste in places like Sellafield, close to the Scottish border.
I had not known, until reader Gavin wrote that he had seen research suggesting that these northern igneous/granite locations are actually less safe than deep clay beds. I did a quick AI search and he’s correct:
Are deep clay beds safer for nuclear waste burial?
Yes, deep clay beds are generally considered among the safest geological formations for burying high-level nuclear waste, based on extensive scientific evaluation by organizations like the IAEA, OECD-NEA, and national programs (e.g., Belgium’s ONDRAF/NIRAS, France’s ANDRA, Switzerland’s NAGRA).
Yes, deep plastic clay beds are generally safer than granite for high-level nuclear waste disposal, according to consensus safety assessments by the IAEA, OECD-NEA, and national programs (Belgium, France, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden). The difference isn’t close in most scenarios.
Bottom Line
| Safer? | Yes — clay is significantly safer than granite |
|---|---|
| Why? | No fast flow paths, self-sealing, superior sorption |
| Exception? | Only if granite site has zero connected fractures (rare) |
Clay doesn’t need perfect canisters. Granite does.
That’s why Belgium, France, and Switzerland chose clay — and why granite programs invest billions in fracture mapping.
Sources:
https://www2.bgs.ac.uk/groundwater/shaleGas/aquifersAndShales/maps/home.html
https://www.eurare.org/countries/britishIsles.html
https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_19079
https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1553_web.pdf
You can still support Talking-up Scotland at any time at: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/checkout/help-talking-up-scotland-tell-truth-about-scotland/payment/nBQxjVzq/details or by direct bank transfer method - Bernadette/John Robertson, Sort code 08-91-04, Account 12266421
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
They don’t care what they put it in, as long as it’s away from the south east.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha I laughed when i read the headline. Not in a million trillion years would they plonk their nuke waste in the south of England especially not near London.
I read a few years ago that nuke waste cannot be stored underground in Cumbria because it’s not safe re the geology of the land. Scotland’s geology is definitely not suitable either and there’s enough waste to deal with already is there not.
LikeLike
I can only surmise that the reason they want to foist Nuclear plants in Scotland is to give them the excuse to then store the waste here as well. That I believe is the thinking behind all this. As before England gets the benefit of Energy security at the expense of Scots.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, I fully agree. Once they have forced a new nuclear station on Scotland that we neither want or need, we will have to take our British Values fair share* of nuclear waste.
*share, clearly includes 100%
LikeLike
Westminster spends £13Billion decommissioning nuclear. Greenham Common shutdown in 1992. 40 mins from London.
LikeLike
Safe nuke burials?
Clay beds? Nope!
Granite formations? Nope!
A ventilation shaft is TOTALLY ideal–in Scotland!!!!!
gavinochiltree
LikeLike